turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:All Fall Down: Annotated
First hundred pages (of 405). Suggestions? ML4E (talk) 23:30, January 2, 2013 (UTC) :I like the format and the subject matter is certainly worth addressing without creating articles. TR (talk) 00:59, January 3, 2013 (UTC) :Agreed. I'm not certain about the name, it had me thinking there was some special edition being released. Not sure what I'd change it to. ::True, although those types of books tend to be named "The Annotated ..." ML4E (talk) 20:54, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :Also, now that I see what you have in mind, I'm thinking that the aborted project which gave us Parallelism in Southern Victory could be resurrected in this format--though I must admit that the thought of doing such a thorough breakdown of a book in any way other than as I read it fills me with dread. Turtle Fan (talk) 01:54, January 3, 2013 (UTC) ::Having just read AFD, I find it not too troublesome to skim though it to pick up references like this. I can see how re-reading a book some time after could be tiresome. ML4E (talk) 20:54, January 4, 2013 (UTC) :::I imagine reading a book and then doing this is not too different from the way I've read the last few TWTPE books--lots of little bookmarks and notes, then when I have time, working through them and moving content to the Wiki. The only difference would be that now it all goes to one page, making it simpler. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:27, January 4, 2013 (UTC) ::True. Because I use library books, I can't mark them up so I take notes on possible articles but hadn't been doing all these one liners since they don't warrant full articles. There are just too many of them to do while reading for the first time but I might, in future, go back and do notes after I finish a scene. ML4E (talk) 16:39, January 5, 2013 (UTC) Seeing that John Lennon died nine years before Irving Berlin, it does seem a little arbitrary the way I have the former as "Contemporary" and the latter as "Historical" but it does seem correct anyway. ML4E (talk) 19:29, February 5, 2013 (UTC) Articles? Given the three references to Dilbert in one book, do you think it would be warranted to do an article on it? We also have a reference in Literary Allusions here. ML4E (talk) 22:24, February 21, 2013 (UTC) :I'd say probably not; Dilbert isn't unique to those worlds (as opposed to Hyperman, for example), and so doesn't give us any particular insight into a how a world where the Yellowstone Supervolcano erupted. That's my two cents. TR (talk) 18:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC) True but we have all sorts of literary works referenced that led to articles being created even though those works are OTL ones and unchanged. Say Superman rather than your "Hyperman" example. However, I don't have strong feelings either way. ML4E (talk) 21:37, February 24, 2013 (UTC) :Well, if memory serves, the Superman article came about because when HT let the Hyperman reference slip, he made a veiled reference to Superman still appearing in the US (which, given that Joe Shuster was born in Canada, that seems less likely). Once we had the article, it made some sense to keep adding on. :That having been said, after reviewing the literary allusion page, and finding that Justin Kloster uses a Dilbert shirt to blend in, I'm actually more in favor of a Dilbert article as the reference helps to underscore the setting of the story and its time-travel aspect. TR (talk) 22:15, February 25, 2013 (UTC) I guess my original point was whether three throw away references without elaboration warranted creation of an article. If there is several paragraphs of commentary on the topic, then it probably is worth creating an article. I have added sub-sections to Benito Mussolini and Al Capone due to this and created an article on South Carolina's Ordinance of Secession for the same reason. None of these are significant to the plot but seem to deserve minor articles. The question I have is whether Dilbert (setting aside the "Counting" part) should get one for just three separate one-liners? ML4E (talk) 19:37, February 27, 2013 (UTC) :For that alone, I myself would vote no. TR (talk) 02:30, February 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Good enought. As I said, I didn't feel strongly either way. ML4E (talk) 18:03, February 28, 2013 (UTC) :I have no strong feelings myself. I always have liked Dilbert, though. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:06, February 28, 2013 (UTC) ::Not to worry, TR says that there is eought to justify an article based on the "Counting" references. ML4E (talk) 18:03, February 28, 2013 (UTC) Then Contemporary References I added a reference to the US sub-prime mortgage crisis just now. It occurs to me that when I first did this annotation article, I blipped over things that were obvious at the time but with a few more years became less so. I wonder what, if anything, will become obscure say five years from now (assuming this wiki still exists) that should have been added? I did deliberately include pop culture references with that in mind, even for people who seemed too well known to bother with. ML4E (talk) 17:50, January 27, 2015 (UTC)